Communicated on 18 September 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 33964/12
Ali Haydar SEVGİ
against Turkey
lodged on 21 May 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case mainly concerns the demolition of the applicant’s house, which was constructed in compliance with the licence he had obtained at the time, during the course of the proceedings brought by him for the annulment of the administrative decision.
In 2006 the Tekirdağ Municipal Executive Committee (belediye encümeni) issued a decision for the demolition of the applicant’s house together with its annexes. The case lodged by the applicant for the annulment of that decision was accepted by the Tekirdağ Administrative Court, who pointed out that such decisions could not be taken without a prior annulment of the construction licence. Subsequently, after having annulled the said licence, the Executive Committee issued another decision for demolition. The applicant initiated a second case, which was dismissed by the Tekirdağ Administrative Court. During the appeal stage, the applicant was informed that the building would be demolished. His request for a stay of execution was granted, however, the building and its annexes were demolished in the meantime. Eventually, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment dismissing the applicant’s case.
The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taking into account, in particular, the judgment of the Tekirdağ Administrative Court dated 7 July 2007, the expert report submitted during the course of the second set of proceedings and the court’s decision for the stay of execution of the demolition order?
Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?
2. Did the second set of proceedings before the Tekirdağ Administrative Court provide the applicant with sufficient procedural guarantees under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the domestic court state in sufficient detail the grounds on which it based its judgment dated 21 October 2010 so as not to render the rights guaranteed theoretical and illusory (see Gereksar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 51, 1 February 2011)?
Moreover, was the demolition, which was in any event carried out during the appeal proceedings, conducted despite the Tekirdağ Administrative Court’s decision for the stay of execution? Did the date noted on that decision (5 August 2011) resulted from a clerical error as alleged by the applicant?
3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the demolition of his property before the judgment concerning his case became final and contrary to the domestic court’s decision for the stay of execution?
4. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide the Court with the case files of both sets of proceedings before the Tekirdağ Administrative Court (E: 2006/107 and E: 2008/203), including the expert reports submitted during the course of those proceedings, as well as the relevant decisions of the Tekirdağ Municipal Executive Committee concerning the applicant’s property.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy